Issue 6505: Use Case Metamodel - UML2 Superstructure issue (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: Daimler AG (Mr. Mario Jeckle, mario(at)jeckle.de) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: I tried to understand some parts of the Use Case metamodel but get stucked ... Looking at figure 10-49 (p. 468) of the current (i.d. 3rd rev) Superstructure document it is not clear or at least not that obvious to me how the Actor is related to the Use Case. The only possibility seems to be the relationship where the UseCase participates taking the role useCase connected to the Classifier. But I don't think that the Actor should play the role subject ... Further, the relationship connecting Actors with UseCases allows the placement of Multiplicities but users are not encouraged to use roles. Why is this asymmetry introduced? I could imagine situations (especially for business models) where roles would perfectly make sense even for Actors. This would be the case always when a actor acts on behalf of another entity or an actor is to be specialized w.r.t. a specific context. Any ideas? Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: November 7, 2003: received issue March 9, 2005: closed issue Discussion: An Actor is a kind of Classifier and, as such, it can have associations to other classifiers including UseCase classifiers. There is nothing special or different about this particular association to distinguish it from other associations. Hence, it was not deemed necessary to have a special meta-association between actors and use cases. If one needs to know which use cases a particular actor is associated with (or vice versa), it is sufficient to get all associations attached to the element (use case or actor) and filter out the ones that represent use case-actor associations. I do not understand the comment about “users not encouraged to use roles” – I see no such restriction anywhere in the metamodel. Actors can indeed be parts (i.e., roles) in some collaboration, so the restriction and “asymmetry” listed here do not seem to exist. Disposition: Closed, no change End of Annotations:===== -Return: cris.kobryn@telelogic.com Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 07:11:54 -0000 From: "Cris Kobryn" To: juergen@omg.org, issues@omg.org, cris.kobryn@telelogic.com Subject: Fwd: Use Case Metamodel - UML2 Superstructure issue User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 68.71.8.84 --- In u2p-issues@yahoogroups.com, Mario Jeckle wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Group, I tried to understand some parts of the Use Case metamodel but get stucked ... Looking at figure 10-49 (p. 468) of the current (i.d. 3rd rev) Superstructure document it is not clear or at least not that obvious to me how the Actor is related to the Use Case. The only possibility seems to be the relationship where the UseCase participates taking the role useCase connected to the Classifier. But I don't think that the Actor should play the role subject ... Further, the relationship connecting Actors with UseCases allows the placement of Multiplicities but users are not encouraged to use roles. Why is this asymmetry introduced? I could imagine situations (especially for business models) where roles would perfectly make sense even for Actors. This would be the case always when a actor acts on behalf of another entity or an actor is to be specialized w.r.t. a specific context. Any ideas? Mario - -- Prof. Mario Jeckle University of Applied Sciences Furtwangen Dept. Business Applications of Computer Science W3C Representative of DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology URL: http://www.jeckle.de MailTo:mario@j... MailTo:jeckle@f... My public key: http://www.jeckle.de/marioJeckle.pub -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+2EFh46tt20EwGqwRAsWRAJ0VblEgOJ53usT8vu6TtkKko/RGuACeK6A7 bWoXSKD40c5ZtKrxb0UOYbc= =Eju7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- End forwarded message ---